RC vs. Fiber based papers

Are resin-coated papers really less permanent and effective than fiber based papers?
I am trying to make a set of prints to give as a present and want them to lastů
What are the pros and cons of each paper?

Answers

Clare, Once again the can of worms is opened!! Which paper do you
currently use? IMHO the best advice is to try printing with both and
see what paper you get on best with. As far as archival permanence
is concerned, many will rant on about the longevity of a fibre print,
but they do need to be processed with a high degree of attention to
detail with regards washing etc. Personally, I feel that a well
processed and selenium or gold toned RC print is every bit as good!!
RC is certainly easier and quicker to use than fibre papers and dries
flat without having to dry mount. As long as the matting materials
are archivally stable then I would use RC. I agree that fibre has a
better tactile quality, but once behind glass this advantage is lost.
Approximately 95% of my printing is done with RC paper simply because
I prefer the final print on this type as opposed to fibre based paper.
Try both and see for yourself. Regards Paul

I don't know what you mean by "effective," but there can no longer be
any doubt that resin-coated papers are less permanent than fiber based
papers. Your specific question, however, does not contain sufficient
information to formulate an answer. You "...want them [the set of
prints] to last..." For how long and under what exact storage and/or
display conditions? Given proper processing of each paper type, one
or both might meet your print life expectancy needs.

there really isnt any contest between the archival life of RC vs
fiber-base papers. rc is viable for 60 years or so, whereas a
properly processed fiber-base print is archival for over 500 years.
the primary difference is that the emulsion is embedded in the grain
of a fiber base paper, while the emulsion sits on top of a plastic
coating on an rc paper. this not only affects archival qualities,
but also the tonality of the finished print. a fiber-base print
typically will yeild a much deeper tone than an rc print. good rc
papers do exhibit a nice range of gray tones, however, and because of
that, they make very good proof prints. no art museum or archival
collections that i know of will accept RC prints. one last little
item is the quality of the paper itself - a good DW fiber-base paper
simply feels more substantial and has a much more loveable surface
characteristic than RC papers.

Lovable? What are you doing, using it as a blanket at night??? (just a
joke here...)but I agree with you on the longevity issue...however, no
museum or archive would allow you to handle an "artifact", whether
textual or 3-dimensional, without gloves on to keep your skin oils off
the item...that would be the #1 killer for anything. The other thing
about institutions is, that although none would consider an RC print
to be a longterm file print, just about every museum, archive and
research library in this country at least, uses RC paper for their
work prints, access prints, patron requests etc. . Usually an
institution will
have the capability to make a fiber print, but the majority of the
work is done on RC. In alot of places, the film files are treated as
the master file, but in an art museum (where the print becomes the
artifact) this is not the case...nor in a project like the HABS/HAER
stuff Mr. Norman does...but then it's a dual thing there, film & fiber
based prints. The film is all polyseter based sheet film, which in
itself is LE rated (the base) at 500+ yrs. (like
microfilm)...everything's tested for residual fix etc, so when they
say "archival", they mean it...

I think the answer to your question, Clare is to define how long you
need them to last. A FB print will last longer if processed & stored
properly, in most cases it's also much more durable under adverse
display conditions, because untoned RC prints are more susceptible to
atmospheric pollutants than FB prints seem to be. If they are going to
be handled alot, and if you are going to assemble them & mount them in
unsafe albums, drymounting etc...then it's kind of a tossup really. If
you do wind up using RC, you might want to go with a non-developer
incorporated paper from a major manufacturer, not some old-style rc
paper. Using strong dilutions of selenium toner, or sulfide toners
like brown, Viradon, Polytoner, sepia etc. will help protect the print
from
pollutants.

Another thing is to remember that nothing lasts forever, the
approach a museum or archive would have would be in putting the
photo/negatives away in a safe spot, and using duplicate copies for
everything. If you want it to last, you can't use it. So my approach
is sorta to look beyond the tactile qualities of a paper, focus (no
pun) on keeping the film safe and choose the most durable paper for
your needs....since I'm talking theory here let me say:
Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my
agency.
Good luck.

I gather from your question and the stated intent of the portfolio of
prints as a gift that you might be looking for a simple approach
with existing materials and equipment (no archival print washer,
no dry-mount press, etc.).

In this case I would suggest that RC paper will process and
wash easliy and with proper after-treatment will probably endure
the ravages of time in your friend's hands without causing you
embarrassment.

I suggest that after develop, stop bath and brief fixing in Rapid Fix
diluted to film strength (usually 1+4) that you rinse each print for
2 minutes and then place it in a washing-aid or fixer remover.
After the washaid give the prints a good wash individually so that
they don't bind together in a clump and then place each print into
a solution of Agfa Sistan for a minute or two.

Agfa Sistan will prevent deterioration of the image by curtailing
migration into the titanium-oxide that brightens the RC print
base.

If, on the other hand, you are equipped to handle FB prints then
that should be the chosen path for the aesthetics of the artefact
itself as much as anything. FB can also benefit from Sistan
although I prefer to achieve similar ends with selenium toning.

If there is a question about which paper is better, then print on
both. Then you will learn why printing on fb is so much better. The
main objection some people have about fb is that you have to wash them
for so long. Baloney. 2 minutes in a film strength rapid fixer, 2 mins
in a wash aid such as kodak hypo clear, and let sit in a tray of water
with some agitation, and then dry by hanging by the corners and you
will have beautiful prints worthy of giving as a gift. RC sucks.
That's why most printers print on fb. It is definately the better
material. James

Given the continual failure of RC papers every time the makers
say "we FINALLY have all the problems fixed", I would go with fibre.
As to which are more 'effective', I am not sure what you mean. Both
look beautiful when a good printer creates an image on them.
Check out David Vestals past articles on print washing methods in
Photo Techniques. A 'soak & dump' method works well and is a lot less
expensive than an 'archival' washer. Just as long as your prints look
good.
Print a good image, mat & mount for clean presentation using
Bainbridge Alpharag Artcare boards and frame it well & either
material will look good. But, going with fibre will help get rid of
the nagging doubts that still come with RC prints. Kind of like
buying a used car...

James, How long have you been printing on fibre? Sounds to me like
your prints are not being archivally processed!! May look good
now......but for how long?? RC sucks? Maybe my correctly processed
RCs will outlast your fibre?? Only time will tell!!

Anyone just tuning in, this is an "auto-thread." All you have to do
is ask a particular question with two words in close proximity (like
fiber and RC, for example) and a computer generates all of the above
and at the very end you are just where you would have been if you'd
read the old prototype threads. I'm sure it works with "Schneider
vs. Rodenstock," anything having to do with "pyro" and if you've got
a really fast chip try it with Xtol.

Paul, Ilford has verified their archival process( 2 min fix in fresh
film strength rapid fix, 2 mins in hypo clearing agent, 20 minute
wash) sequence through exhautive testing. I have been printing for
enough years to know that Ilford or Kodak wouldn't put it in writing
if it wasn't a good method. I have prints in full sunlight 3 or 4
hours a day behind glass that have been hanging for years with no
deterioration whatsoever. Edward Weston had a very limited supply of
water in his darkroom. He didn't have an archival washer wasting
water. He used trays of water which were changed after so many
prints were put through them. Neither do many printers who don't have
access to large amounts of water. No my system has proved out as far
as I'm concerned. Your RC will last a long time givebn adequate care
and adequate storage conditions. But I have RC prints that were washed
for an hour or more that have silvered out sitting in a dark closet.
So I say RC is no where near as good as fibre base paper. Just look at
any gallery you want to pick and see how many accept RC prints. I have
seen way too many "archivally" processed RC prints that last a few
years and then silver out. Ctein has written about it exhaustively
too. Sorry, case closed. James

James, Afraid the case is still slightly ajar! Washing RC prints for
an hour isn't going to make them archival. With RC too much wahing is
detrimental to the print. One of the advantages of RC is its short
wash times, the plastic prevents fixer entering the paper support.
Too long a wash and the print can suffer from cockling, where the
plastic and paper starts to separate.Maybe this has been the problem
you encountered? I've seen plenty of crappy RC prints (that have
been processed incorrectly)that won't last and plenty of crappy fibre
prints too (covered in stains and not flat)that won't last. The point
I'm trying to make is that you can't simply dismiss something just
because its the "in" thing to do! If RC wasn't any good then why is
it still being made? Everything has its place! I use fibre paper,
but still prefer using RC for lots of my work. I too have RC prints
that both myself and my customers have had hanging in all sorts of
locations.....TO MY KNOWLEDGE NONE OF THEM HAS LET ME DOWN.
Photography is full of snobbery, dismissing RC paper is just another
example of it! Whether you like it or not RC is here to
stay....customer demand will ensure that. I appreciate that Ctein may
have concluded that RC is crap ( haven't read any of his stuff) but
I'm a great believer in trying things out for myself rather than
taking one persons word as gospel. And remember, all your negatives
will probably be on plastic anyhow, so you want to hope that it does
last!! Regards

Not to pour oil on troubled waters but my understanding of Ctein's
conclusions was as follows. I don't think he was saying the plastic
is problematic. Resin coated paper uses titanium dioxide as part of
the white paper subbing layer instead of barium oxide which is used
in fiber based paper. He concluded that the titanium oxide layer was
at war with the plastic base, and exposure to light hastened the
battle. Keeping a print under glass seems to exacerbate the problem.
As stated in a previous post, selenium toning and treatment with
Sistan seems to help the problem. As for how they look, heck,
whatever looks good to you is the only criterion that can be used.
Was it Weston who said he didn't care if the print was made on a
bathmat as long as it was a good print? Cheers, DJ.

FWIW, Wilhelm talks a bit about this in his book, and in talking about
polyester based print materials, such as the Melinex based Cibachrome
Classic paper--which is an opaque type polyester base---he says that
if the manufacturers were to make a b&w RC paper on this base material
(without the brighteners) that this would outlast
any other type of b&w print. Apparently, polyester is incredibly
stable, supposedly moreso than 100% cotton in dark storage, and it is
the most resistant to atmospheric damage as well. This is why ESTAR
based, or polyester based sheet films are used in institutions, or in
the HABS work as well...coupled with toning the image to protect the
emulsion, makes it very longlasting...and this also the reason why
Mylar D enclosures are preferred as well.

Here are some links for info about RC papers. The biggest problems
I've ever encountered with RC papers have been with them being
attacked by pollutants from their surroundings. In some sorta
unscientifc ringarounds we've done, the toned images have lasted
alright, while an untoned control print will crap out relatively fast.
Different papers are affected differently as well, in fact the one
paper that Wilhelm recommended in his 1993 book, has performed the
worst
as far as I can tell. I'm going to tack a link on to a page studying
peroxide attacks on RC prints, that's exactly what I'm referring
to...what we've seen--using the same materials & processor--is close
to this example.

I'm not intending for this to be a "rc v.s. fiber thread", but for
some uses fiber based paper is impractical, and I don't believe that
every person out there looking at this forum is interested in making
"master prints" all the time... Here are the links:

Here's another good one for you all...this is from the NEDCC's online
tutorial "Preservation 101", and this part deals with photos. This is
a good overview of the terminology, ANSI specs, and practices used in
dealing with long term archiving.

http://www.nedcc.org/p101cs/lesson7.htm

This is a good page to keep handy if you're interested in storage
materials as well.

Geez, must be having a bad night down here...these links are
all....well, look all this stuff came off of three major conservation
sites. One is the massive, Conservation OnLine. Besides having tons of
other useful info, there's a pretty longrunning listgroup off there
called the ConsDistList. If you do searches on that, you'll find a
variety of researchers & conservators answering questions there....The
NEDCC documetns are great, and the "Preservation 101" tutorial can be
accessed through the homepage easily. Lastly, Abbey Publications is
another paper conservation group, and Douglas Nishimura of the Image
Permanence Institute wrote an article called "How Stable Are Photos on
RC Paper" for the Abbey Newsletter, Vol. 21, Number 4. Nov.1997. You
can get to Abbey through CoOL. Douglas Nishimura, and others have alot
of posts on the Distlist as well. These other ones that dealt with
developer incorporated
papers, residual thiosulfate levels, toning for protection etc. The
IAQ group is another good site, but that may be too museum oriented
for some. I was just trying to save you all some legwork....

I went through my stored prints over the weekend looking for some
prints to put up at an exhibit this week. I found that a lot more of
the RC prints made on Ilford RC paper in the time period 1991 to 1997
are getting brown spots. I stopped using RC paper all together in
1997.

OK - Now were talking, WINE, RC and Fiber Paper! It is the best
combination! I think the staining would be more beautiful on the
fiber and of course the feel of a Great Wine on a Fine Fiber Paper is
hard to beat. But the RC would wash up much better after the Party.

All joking aside... I am new to fiber (the last few years) and there
is no doubt that it is the BEST. But I just can't stand to throw out
20 hand made Fine Fiber Prints onto a Board Room Table for
discussion, and have the Damn pigs dump Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, on
them and then finger them to death. I feel that because of
the "Fiber Only" Mistique we have created the impression that they
are difficult to print(this is NOT true) however, I think we all can
agree that they do require more time. And for me time is Money! And
if I only have a 2 or 3 hours to make up 20 prints for a meeting,
then the choice has been made for me. But I DO like Fiber more and
more each day. I just wish I knew all there is to know about all the
Mystery, but then I miss the fun of learning.

Clare, try Fiber you will like it. My Doctor says it's good for the
Diet, and none of get enough fiber.... ;-)

Hey Dan, chill out!!!! Surely the whole point of a forum is to
discuss and debate? I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion as you are
to yours, so what's the problem? I'm just telling it as I see it,
sure I don't test my materials in a scientific manner...I USE MY TIME
TO TAKE PHOTOS, NOT TO TEST!! If something works for me, I'll use
it. If the same doesn't suit you, then who gives a ****!! Do what
suits you, I'm not that interested. As for customer
demands......the customer controls demand!! If the customer don't
want it then it ain't going to last that long!! We're seeing it as we
speak, Kodak withdrawing black and white films, Polaroid up against
the wall.WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!

Paul, Clare doesn't have customers, at least not in the context of
this thread. The question asked about "...a set of prints to give as
a present..." My first posting pointed out that additional
information is required before a useful answer can be provided.

Dan seems to get upset when he reads postings which either imply or
state outright that the life expectancy of properly processed RC and
fiber are or can be equivalent with current materials. Such postings
are nonsense. Scientific inquiry is necessary to reach reasonable
conslusions. If someone is not disposed to personally perform
relevant research, then reputable scientific sources should be
consulted for reliable life expectancy data.

RC prints may be useful in certain commercial situations. They may
even be adequate for Clare's purposes. We won't know until the
question is expanded to tell us storage and/or display conditions and
required print life. However, there is not one iota of doubt that
properly processed fiber prints will outlast those made on any RC
material available from its inception through today. To state
otherwise simply ignores reality.

Dear All, the fibre vs RC debate will always rage on! And I will
happily continue using both for as long as I get the same results as
at present. If some contributors get upset by my opinion, then maybe
they need to rethink the reason why they bother to contribute to this
forum, they are after all offering THEIR opinion! I do not dispute
the scientific fact that it has been proven that fibre paper will
last for many years, I AM NOT OFFERING SCIENTIFIC FACT, JUST MY
OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF RC!! This is an informal forum not a
lecture theatre!! what I object to is people who belittle those who
do not practice the same methods as themselves. My opinions may not
be scientifically correct, but I am still entitled to them! I am not
too proud to learn from this forum but I am not under the illusion
that my photos desrve to survive for 500 years either. I seem to be
a minority in as much as I favour RC paper!! So what!! I'm happy,
some people like my work and some buy it!! But who knows, maybe I'll
start a new craze....printing on bath mats!! love and peace Paul

Hey Paul, don't take it so hard....I don't read any of this thread as
an attack upon you at all. The whole argument (if this is one) is
sorta pointless in a way because each paper has it's place, and I
don't think anyone is disputing that, just as I'm not going to say
that one is better than the other. That 500 year mark is not 500
years hanging in a
gallery, coffee shop or someone's living room. It's 500 years in a
cold or cool storage vault in the dark, maybe being handled by a
gloved curator or archivist twice a year....so don't sweat it. The
majority of what I do both at work & on my own is on RC papers & it's
fine with me, all I say is just understand your materials & choose
accordingly. I, for one, don't believe that every print I make is a
work of art, and should therefore last forever...negs are another
story though...but then that's just me...the "commercial hack" Oh:

Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my
agency.

Paul, take a pil or something. The question simply asked which paper
people preferred and why. It also asked about RC's vs FB longevity.
Fact: RC doesn't last as long as FB. Period. There is too much
evidence. Fact: Most fine art prints are made on FB paper. It is a
nicer more expressive paper for fine art interpretation. That is why
most all fine art prints are made on FB paper. Period. Nothing here
diminishes RC's uses as a good printing medium if you need 20 copies
for a board meeting or other bussiness presentation. But the question
asked which paper each of us would recommend for printing images as
gifts. Seeing as RC has had a reputation for deteriorating and FB has
not, then it is obvious which should be the choice in this instance.
I'm glad you find RC paper suits your needs. Many amayeurs print on
RC. But have a look at professional black and white fine art prints
and that answers the question. Period.